Case Number: 19STCV11465 Hearing Date: November 21, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff Serkan Catak (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jerry Linden Shelton and L&L Logistics and Warehousing, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 18, 2018.

On October 11, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas issued to various medical providers pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for September 29, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendants ask the Court to compel eighteen medical providers to comply with deposition subpoenas as to which they failed to comply with the subpoenas because Plaintiff objected to the subpoenas.

Defendants also ask the Court impose $1,060 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his attorney of record for forcing Defendants to bring this motion.

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose $2,025 against Defendants to cover their time in opposing this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (b), a motion to compel the production of any document that is specified in a deposition notice or a deposition subpoena “. . .shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the deposition. . . .” When objections are served, the 60-day deadline begins from the service of the objections. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192.)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, examples of the misuse of the discovery process include, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff stated in a verified response to discovery that his primary complaints involve radiating neck pain, radiating back pain, and headaches and migraines. (Conley Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff also stated in a verified response to discovery that he had a minor back injury in 2011 or 2012 and received chiropractic care. (Ibid.)

On September 4, 2019, Defendants served deposition subpoenas on the following providers: Providence St. Joseph’s Medical Center, Providence St. Joseph’s Medical Center – Billing, Providence St. Joseph’s Medical Center – Xrays, California Hospital Medical Center, California Hospital Medical Center – Billing, California Hospital Medical Center –Xrays, Glendale Memorial Hospital, Glendale Memorial Hospital – Billing, Glendale Memorial Hospital – Xrays, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center – Billing, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center – Xrays, Adventist Health Glendale, Adventist Health Glendale – Billing, Adventist Health Glendale – Xrays, USC Verdugo Hills Hospital, USC Verdugo Hills Hospital – Billing, and USC Verdugo Hills Hospital – Xrays. (Conley Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) All of the subpoenas requested the following documents: “all records and billing referencing complaints of the lumbar spine, neck, headaches, and migraines from 10/18/2008 through present regarding [Plaintiff] . . . dating from 10/01/2008 to present. (Ibid.) Plaintiff objected to the subpoenas as violating Plaintiff’s right to privacy, being vague, and being overbroad. (Conley Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)

Defendants argue the Court should order compliance with the subpoenas issued on September 4, 2019 because Plaintiff stated he had a minor back injury in 2011 or 2012 and received chiropractic care. (Motion, p. 6:21-6:27.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has placed Plaintiff’s lumbar spine and neck and complaints regarding headaches and migraines in question by seeking damages for injuries to his back and neck and for headaches and migraines. (Motion, p. 6:10-6:12.) Plaintiff’s sole argument is that the subpoenas are overbroad because Plaintiff never suggested that Plaintiff was treated with the providers which received the subpoenas. (Opposition, pp. 4:25-5:4.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted. Plaintiff does not contest that the subpoenas relate to body parts that Plaintiff has placed in question. Additionally, Plaintiff has agreed to the subpoenas dating back ten years. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, there is no authority mandating that a party has to suggest that party was treated by a certain medical provider in order for a subpoena to that medical provider to be valid. Rather, “privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial” after balancing “the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.) Plaintiff’s privacy interest in the locations and names of the facilities where Plaintiff received treatment must give way to Defendants’ right to discover past medical treatment to the body parts about which Plaintiff complains in this litigation.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections to the subpoenas were without substantial justification, so Defendants are entitled to sanctions. Defendants’ request for $1,060 in sanctions consists of 3 hours in preparing the motion, 1 hour in preparing a reply, and 1 hour in appearing at the hearing at a rate of $200 an hour, plus one $60 filing fee. (Conley Decl., ¶ 11.) The Court finds this to be a reasonable amount of sanctions.

The motion is GRANTED.

The following providers are ordered to comply with the subpeonas issued to them by Defendants on September 4, 2019 within 20 days of this order: Providence St. Joseph’s Medical Center, Providence St. Joseph’s Medical Center – Billing, Providence St. Joseph’s Medical Center – Xrays, California Hospital Medical Center, California Hospital Medical Center – Billing, California Hospital Medical Center –Xrays, Glendale Memorial Hospital, Glendale Memorial Hospital – Billing, Glendale Memorial Hospital – Xrays, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center – Billing, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center – Xrays, Adventist Health Glendale, Adventist Health Glendale – Billing, Adventist Health Glendale – Xrays, USC Verdugo Hills Hospital, USC Verdugo Hills Hospital – Billing, and USC Verdugo Hills Hospital – Xrays.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay Defendants $1,060, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.